Nice comparison, but we all know this.

KZ2 blows GeoW2 out of the water.

wats a KZ2 liberation

2 days 2 go baby!!! :D

The big reason KZ2 is superior is not only in the graphics here in a frame by frame shot but also in the capabilities of the PS3 in terms of game scope. Resistance 2, Killzone 2 and other PS3 mainstays have done what the 360 has not been able to do, provided a large scale (32+ person) multiplayer experience seamlessly. Yes Gears has decent graphics, but they limit teams to 5 people on each side, so its relatively easy to make things look better (due to the small scope). Alternately in the case of the PS3 FPS games there are huge numbers of players on the screen at once without any real frame rate drops to speak of. There is a reason ideas like MAG with 256 person games don't pop up on the 360 side of things, there is no way the 360 could handle it.

Are there any 360 games with 32+ person multiplayer even now? I know halo 3 is 16, gears is 8 or 10 (1 vs 2), think COD4 is 16...serious question, I think the answer is no but I'm not positive (the PS3 had 32 person multiplayer on release with Resistance 1 incidentally).

respect.

*sigh*

respect. B, ya, dawg.

Yup so true , its not like its the developers choice to choose the number of players in a multiplayer match right?

   I don't say its impossible, what I do say is that the quality of a Gears of War 2 cannot be maintained in large matches (its quite possible even Halo 3 quality can't be maintained).  Frontlines graphics are not up there in the high end region from the reviews I've read so its not quite apples to apples as a comparison.

   My point is not that no game can have a lot of people on screen ( I know for a fact FFXI has dozens on at once on the 360 just like it did on the PS2 for instance) but that 360 games cannot maintain a high level of graphical fidelity with a lot of things on screen at once (especially a lot of players).

   I know someone above said its simply a design decision to have all games limited to 16 or less players, but I really doubt thats entirely true.  Perhaps having more in the game at once just made things too unstable which forced the design decision.  Is there anyone who wouldn't appreciate an epic 16 on 16 fight especially with all the vehicles in Halo?  I think not (its tons of fun in Warhawk).  To have 32+ the 360 would probably have to ratchet down the textures for gamesl ike Gears 2, which would mean a seperate set of lower quality textures which there is no room for on the DVD media those games ship on.  That's my guess anyway.

God, developers are such liars/con artists, I watched the video in HD and the graphics weren't really that good and perhaps half as good as in the promo shots and "gameplay" shots around.
Same with Oblivion and Crysis, the games look nothing like in the promo shots at all and you realize how much they play around with post processing in promo shots. Doesn't take much power or programming to make a still image look good after all...
I'm sick of being presented with only half the truth, the worst case I can think of is Mass Effect, that truly let me down big time (PC version) and wasn't within leagues of the promo "gameplay" shots.

OT: Being a newer game with newer technology and a much bigger budget, KZ 2 better look the part... I do think it does look better (the character mesh and textures aren't really that good on either of the games though and the details are static (i.e; wrinkles and clothing don't really have physics and muscles remain unmoving, only the joints have a life it seems) so overall I'm not very impressed (Crysis also has very static details and some pretty bad textures on faces, trees, underbrush and rocks as well).